coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
7.  The applicant lives in Großbottwar, Germany.
8.  He owned four shares in a company, the MotoMeter AG. 99 % of this company's shares were held by the company Robert Bosch GmbH.
9.  On 6 July 1992, following a majority decision of the shareholders' meeting, the MotoMeter AG sold all its company assets to a newly founded company, the MotoMeter GmbH, and was subsequently liquidated. The majority shareholder offered to buy the minority shareholders' shares at a price of 615 DEM (314.44 EUR) per share.
10.  On 22 July 1992, the applicant and other private shareholders challenged the decision of 6 July 1992 before the Stuttgart Regional Court. They submitted that the main shareholder had circumvented rules aiming at the protection of minority shareholders inherent in the German Act on Stock Companies (Aktiengesetz). They further complained that the price per share offered by the main shareholder was too low and that minority shareholders had not been able to buy parts of the assets.
11.  On 22 January 1993, the Regional Court rejected the claim on the grounds that the decision in question was lawful and that there had been no violation of the applicant's and other shareholders' rights.
12.  On 21 December 1993, the Stuttgart Court of Appeal rejected the appeals lodged by the applicant and the other minority shareholders.
13.  On 5 December 1994, the Federal Court of Justice refused to entertain their appeals on points of law.
14.  On 12 January 1995, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court.
15.  On 23 August 2000 (served on 13 September 2000), the Federal Constitutional Court refused to entertain the applicant's complaint, finding that the complaint was not of fundamental constitutional significance. Referring to an earlier decision of the same day dealing with a similar subject matter, which it attached, the Federal Constitutional Court noted that entertaining the complaint was not necessary in order to enforce the applicant's rights. Finally, as the applicant had only possessed four shares of the MotoMeter AG, his financial loss had not posed an existential burden for him.
4.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Rome.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to A.M.A.
6.  In a registered letter of 7 June 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 7 December 1983, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 10 March 1984, which was made enforceable on 11 April 1984, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1984.
9.  On 9 January 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
10.  On 30 January 1986, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 20 February 1986.
11.  Between 20 February 1986 and 23 January 1996, the bailiff made forty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
12.  On 6 July 1999, the applicant served a second notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
13.  On 19 July 1999, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 4 August 1999.
14.  Between 4 August 1999 and 25 November 1999, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  On 7 December 1999, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Naples.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Naples, which she had let to G.M.
6.  In a registered letter of 8 April 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 23 March 1988, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 17 June 1988, which was made enforceable on 5 July 1988, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 4 May 1992.
9.  On 16 December 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
10.  On 13 January 1993, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 January 1993.
11.  Between 21 January 1993 and 4 February 2000, the bailiff made fifteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
12.  On 30 November 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
6.  The applicants were born in 1936 and 1958 respectively and live in Brwinow, Poland.
7.  On 11 May 1989 the applicants filed with the Pruszków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an action in which they claimed the payment by an enterprise Z.R.B. run by a local State authority of the agreed price for their transportation services.
8.  On 5 November 1990 the court awarded them the amount claimed. The defendant's representative lodged an appeal.
9.  On 27 March 1991 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the District Court's judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.
10.  On 5 June 1991 the District Court summoned the Brwinów commune's board (zarząd miasta i gminy), the self-governmental successor of the local State authority that had run enterprise Z.R.B., to take part in the proceedings as the defendant.
11.  On 2 August 1999 the court gave judgment. It awarded the applicants the amount claimed by them. They appealed.
12.  On 7 April 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed their appeal.
7.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Leverkusen (Germany).
8.  He is the owner of a flat in Turin, which he had let to V.P.
9.  On 2 December 1992, the applicant served a writ on the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 July 1993 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date and summoned the tenant to appear before the Turin Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 16 December 1992, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 July 1994.
11.  On 7 July 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
12.  On 17 December 1994 he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 January 1995.
13.  Between 10 January 1995 and 13 November 1998, the bailiff made eight attempts to recover possession.
14.  On 12 May 1998, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his son.
15.  On 20 July 1999, the tenant requested the Turin Magistrate (according to art. 6 L.431/98) to set a fresh date for the enforcement of the order.
16.  On 13 January 2000, the Turin Magistrate decided to defer the date of eviction until the 14 February 2000.
17.  On 14 February 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Naples.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Naples, which he had let to G.S.
6.  In a registered letter of 25 September 1989, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 15 July 1991, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 4 October 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 4 October 1992.
10.  On 16 January 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
11.  On 22 February 1993, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 2 March 1993.
12.  Between 2 March 1993 and 29 June 2000, the bailiff made sixteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 7 July 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
9.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Milan.
10.  He is the owner of a flat in Milan, which he had let to M.M.L.
11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 25 October 1990, the applicant informed her that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1991 and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 12 November 1990, which was made enforceable on 7 January 1991, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 1 July 1992.
13.  On 22 July 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
14.  On 17 September 1992, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 16 October 1992.
15.  Between 16 October 1992 and 19 October 1993, the bailiff made 5 attempts to recover possession.
16.  On 26 November 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
17.  Between 11 January 1994 and 14 April 1997, the bailiff made 15 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
18.  On 26 June 1997, the tenant vacated the premises.
6.  The applicants were born in 1945 and live in Rome.
7.  V.C. was the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to C.V.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 9 June 1987, the owner informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 4 February 1988 and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 13 January 1988, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 September 1989.
10.  On 13 October 1989, the owner served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
11.  On 4 February 1989, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 January 1990.
12.  Between 11 January 1990 and 13 November 1991, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the owner was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 12 November 1991, the applicants became the owners of the flat and pursued the enforcement proceedings.
14.  On 2 March 1994, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
15.  On 31 March 1994, they informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 April 1994.
16.  Between 29 April 1994 and 3 March 2000, the bailiff made twenty-six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
17.  In the meanwhile, on 24 January 1995, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves.
18.  On 7 April 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Kaunas.
5.  The applicant was suspected of committing various financial irregularities. Criminal proceedings were instituted in this respect on 15 May 1995. On the same date the applicant was arrested.
6.  On 18 May 1995 the applicant was released on bail.
7.  On 13 May 1996 the applicant was charged with appropriating  property of another and embezzlement. On the same date he was again arrested.
8.  On 9 July 1996 the Kaunas City District Court committed the applicant for trial.
9.  On 11 October 1996 the court remitted the case to the prosecution for further investigative measures to be carried out.
10.  Upon the prosecutors' appeal, on 17 December 1996 the Kaunas Regional Court quashed the above decision, ordering that trial should recommence.
11.  On 7 February 1997 the Kaunas City District Court adjourned the examination of the case in order to conduct an audit of an enterprise owned by the applicant. On the same date the applicant was released on bail.
12.  During the period from 7 February 1997 until 13 December 2001 the investigative authorities conducted the audit of the applicant's company.
13.  On 21 February 2001 the trial recommenced.
14.  On 2 April 2002 the Kaunas City District Court convicted the applicant on two counts, obtaining property of another and improper operations with currency,  sentencing him to two years' imprisonment. Civil damages in the amount of 811,560 Lithuanian litai (LTL) were also ordered against him.
15.  Upon the applicant's appeal, on 10 October 2002 the Kaunas Regional Court quashed  the conviction, referring the case back to the first instance court for a fresh trial.
16.  On 25 February 2003 the Supreme Court quashed the appeal judgment, returning the case for a fresh examination at appellate instance.
17.  On 17 April 2003 the Kaunas Regional Court acting as a court of appeal pronounced a new judgment, acquitting the applicant on one of the charges against him (obtaining property of another). However, his conviction for improper currency operations stayed. The sentence was reduced to one year' imprisonment. No civil damages were ordered against the applicant.
18.  The applicant submitted a cassation appeal which is currently pending before the Supreme Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Lucca.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to A.D.L.
6.  In a registered letter of 28 June 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 23 December 1986, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 22 January 1987, which was made enforceable on 3 September 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.
9.  On 7 June 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
10.  On 5 July 1989, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 26 July 1989.
11.  Between 26 July 1989 and 20 March 1995, the bailiff made 13 attempts to recover possession.
12.  On 20 July 1995, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his children.
13.  Between 19 October 1995 and 17 April 2002, the bailiff made 11 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  In October 2002, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
10.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Birmingham. At the relevant time he was a member of the Royal Air Force (RAF).
11.  On 18 February 1998 the applicant, along with a co-accused, was convicted by a district court-martial (pursuant to section 70(1) of the Air Force Act 1955) of theft contrary to the Theft Act 1968. He was sentenced to fifty-six days' imprisonment, to be dismissed from the service and to be reduced to the ranks.
12.  The applicant's court-martial was composed of a permanent president (Wing Commander Rodgers), two other officers of lower rank (Squadron Leader Borthwick and Flight Lieutenant Winks) and a judge advocate.
Wing Commander Rodgers' appointment to the post of permanent president was his last before retirement in September 1998. Although he had been the subject of appraisal reports prior to August 1997, he was not reported on thereafter. The two ordinary members had attended the junior officers' command course in 1993, which included training in disciplinary processes.
13.  By a letter from the reviewing authority dated 3 April 1998, the applicant's representative was informed that neither the findings nor the sentence of the court-martial would be varied. The authority had received advice from the Judge Advocate General.
14.  The applicant's appeal to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court against conviction and sentence was dismissed on 5 February 1999.
8.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Halásztelek, Hungary.
9.  In February 1991 the applicant's employment was terminated by mutual consent. She subsequently challenged the validity of this agreement and claimed damages before the Budapest Labour Court. Her action was filed with the court on 3 May 1991. The applicant alleged that her resignation was void on account of her temporary incapacity at the time of signing the agreement with her employer.
10.  On 3 July and 30 September 1991, as well as on 25 March and 22 September 1992, hearings were held. On 10 June 1993 the Labour Court suspended the proceedings pending the preparation of a medical expert opinion on the applicant's mental capacity. This opinion was submitted on 26 October 1993. In view of certain inconsistencies between this opinion and earlier opinions, the applicant was subsequently ordered to undergo an examination by the National Council of Health Sciences (“the Council”). This examination was carried out on 11 November 1994. The Council's opinion was submitted to the court on 12 January 1995.
11.  The proceedings were resumed and a hearing was held on 10 October 1995. At the hearing the applicant was requested to elaborate on and quantify her claims.
12.  On 16 April 1996 the Labour Court requested the Council to update its opinion. The Council's revised opinion was submitted on 11 July 1996.
13.  On 29 October 1996 the Labour Court reminded the applicant of its order of 10 October 1995 requiring her to quantify her claims. She did so on 26 November 1996.
14.  On 4 December 1996, 29 January, 12 March and 28 May 1997 further hearings took place. On the latter date the Budapest Labour Court delivered its judgment in which it annulled the disputed agreement and dismissed the remainder of the action.
15.  The applicant's appeal of 14 November 1997 was dismissed by the Budapest Regional Court on 15 April 1998.
16.  On 31 March 1999 the Supreme Court dismissed her petition for review. This decision was served on 4 May 1999.
6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Gerasdorf-Seyring (Austria).
7.  On 2 October 1992 the Vienna Customs Office (Zollamt) opened investigations against a number of suspects under the Tax Offences Act (Finanzstrafgesetz) concerning charges of smuggling. Subsequently, these investigations were also directed against the applicant.
8.  On 30 September 1993 the Customs Office transmitted the final investigations report concerning the applicant and seven other suspects to the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft).
9.  On 1 July 1999, after the investigating judge conducted further investigations, the Public Prosecutor preferred the indictment on charges of smuggling against the applicant and two co-accused.
10.  On 30 November 1999 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court acquitted the applicant.
11.  On 12 September 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the pleas of nullity and the appeal against sentence. The decision was served on the applicant on 5 October 2000.
4.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Milan, which it had let to E.S.
5.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 April 1986, the applicant informed the tenant that it intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term and summoned her to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
6.  By a decision of 12 May 1986, which was made enforceable on 22 May 1986, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 March 1987.
7.  On 5 June 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
8.  On 26 June 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 July 1987.
9.  Between 24 July 1987 and 9 November 1999, the bailiff made forty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
10.  On 14 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
8.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Koszwały, Poland.
9.  On 6 February 1992 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder, grievous bodily harm, and insulting and assaulting policemen.
10.  On 8 February 1992 the Gdańsk District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) brought criminal charges against him.
11.  On 6 July 1992 prosecution authorities lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a bill of indictment against him.
12.  From 29 January 1993 to 30 April 1993 no hearing was held.
13.  A hearing listed for 18 June 1993 was adjourned until 21 September 1993. A further hearing, listed for 21 September 1993, was adjourned because the judge rapporteur was ill. The next hearing, scheduled for 12 October 1993, was cancelled because the judge rapporteur was hospitalised.
14.  On 10 January 1994 the case was assigned to another panel of judges as the presiding judge rapporteur resigned from his function.
15.  On 15 March 1994 the hearing was re-opened.
16.  The subsequent hearings were held on 22 March, 18 May, 12 July and 26 September 1994 and on 10 January 1995.
17.  On 13 January 1995 the Gdańsk Regional Court pronounced its judgment. It convicted the applicant as indicted, except for the count of murder, of which he was acquitted. The court sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. On 3 July 1995 the prosecutor lodged an appeal against that judgment, contesting its part relating to the acquittal.
18.  On 12 October 1995 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the contested part of the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.
19.  The court held hearings on 13 March and 15 May 1996. A hearing scheduled for 8 July 1996 was adjourned until 14 October 1996. A further hearing, listed for 14 October 1996, was cancelled because the judge rapporteur was ill. The subsequent hearing was held on 6 November 1996.
20.  On 13 December 1996 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder with an oblique intent (w zamiarze ewentualnym) and sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment.
21.  On 18 June 1997 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal modified the judgment in that it convicted the applicant of grievous bodily harm with deadly effect and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment.
22.  In the letter of 1 July 1997 the applicant's legal aid lawyer informed him that he refused to lodge a cassation appeal against that judgment, arguing that there was no indication of any breach of substantive or procedural law. He explained that lodging that appeal would only delay the proceedings concerning a cumulative penalty (kara łączna) and, afterwards, proceedings concerning the applicant's conditional release.
23.  On 13 July 1998 the Gdańsk Regional Court delivered a judgment in which it sentenced the applicant to ten years' imprisonment as the cumulative penalty for the convictions included in the judgments of 13 January 1995, 13 December 1996 and 27 May 1992 (delivered in the course of other criminal proceedings).